Subject: Re: [boost] program options (consider using BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION)
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-22 03:51:51
On 22.06.2012 11:33, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Vladimir Prus<ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On 20.06.2012 07:44, Rowan James wrote:
>>
>>> On a related note; is there interest in a patch set to use
>>> BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION to add this (yes, programmer-oriented) information
>>> to
>>> the exceptions thrown by Program Options and/or other Boost libraries?
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I kinda miss context here (and I did read your original post).
>> What are advantages of
>> using BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION and what are drawbacks? Could you summarize
>> those for me?
>>
>
> Allow me :-
>
> BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION, being a macro, is able to record the file name, the
> function name, and the line number of the throw, which is useful when
> diagnosing unexpected exceptions:
>
> catch(...)
> {
> std::cerr<< "Unexpected exception caught. Diagnostic information
> follows.\n";
> std::cerr<< boost::current_exception_diagnostic_information();
> }
>
> The exception object is examined dynamically for any and all useful
> information: type, what(), throw location, any stored boost::error_info
> objects, etc. The location of the throw (if available) is formatted in a
> way Visual Studio understands: double-clicking shows the throw location,
> similarly to double-clicking compile errors.
>
> The downside is that when templates are involved, BOOST_CURRENT_FUNCTION
> (invoked by BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION) can bloat the code. There is a Trac
> ticket for this.
Emil,
thanks for explaining. Given the above, I am not sure I am interested in using
BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION for program_options, given that exceptions are used there to report
user mistakes mostly, and so function name or file line is of limited interest.
Thanks,
Volodya